Etymology

The name Canada comes from the St. Lawrence Iroquoian word kanata, meaning “village” or “settlement”.[10] In 1535, indigenous inhabitants of the present-day Quebec City region used the word to direct French explorer Jacques Cartier to the village of Stadacona.[11] Cartier later used the word Canada to refer not only to that particular village, but the entire area subject to Donnacona (the chief at Stadacona); by 1545, European books and maps had begun referring to this region asCanada.[11]

Upon Confederation in 1867, Canada was adopted as the legal name for the new country, and the word Dominion was conferred as the country’s title.[13] However, as Canada asserted its political autonomy from the United Kingdom, the federal government increasingly used simply Canada on state documents and treaties, a change that was reflected in the renaming of the national holiday from Dominion Day to Canada Day in 1982.[14]

History

Aboriginal peoples

Archaeological studies and genetic analyses have indicated a human presence in the northern Yukon region from 24,500 BC, and in southern Ontario from 7500 BC.[15][16][17] The Paleo-Indian archaeological sites at Old Crow Flats and Bluefish Caves are two of the oldest sites of human habitation in Canada.[18][19][20] The characteristics of Canadian Aboriginal societies included permanent settlements, agriculture, complex societal hierarchies, and trading networks.[21][22] Some of these cultures had collapsed by the time European explorers arrived in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and have only been discovered through archaeological investigations.[23]

The aboriginal population is estimated to have been between 200,000[24] and two million in the late 15th century,[25] with a figure of 500,000 accepted by Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[26] As a consequence of the European colonization, Canada’s aboriginal peoples suffered from repeated outbreaks of newly introduced infectious diseases such as influenza, measles, and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), resulting in a forty- to eighty-percent population decrease in the centuries after the European arrival.[24] Aboriginal peoples in present-day Canada include the First Nations,[27]Inuit,[28] and Métis.[29] The Métis are a mixed-blood people who originated in the mid-17th century when First Nations and Inuit people married European settlers.[30] In general, the Inuit had more limited interaction with European settlers during the colonization period.[31]

European colonization

The first known attempt at European colonization began when Norsemen settled briefly at L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland around 1000 AD.[32] No further European exploration occurred until 1497, when Italian seafarer John Cabot explored Canada’s Atlantic coast for England.[33]Basque and Portuguese mariners established seasonal whaling and fishing outposts along the Atlantic coast in the early 16th century.[34] In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier explored the St. Lawrence River, where on July 24 he planted a 10-metre (33 ft) cross bearing the words “Long Live the King of France”, and took possession of the territory in the name of King Francis I of France.[35]

The 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized American independence and ceded territories south of the Great Lakes to the United States. New Brunswick was split from Nova Scotia as part of a reorganization of Loyalist settlements in the Maritimes. To accommodate English-speaking Loyalists in Quebec, the Constitutional Act of 1791 divided the province into French-speaking Lower Canada (later Quebec) and English-speaking Upper Canada (later Ontario), granting each its own elected legislative assembly.[41]

The Canadas were the main front in the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain. Following the war, large-scale immigration to Canada from Britain and Ireland began in 1815.[25] Between 1825 and 1846, 626,628 European immigrants reportedly landed at Canadian ports.[43] Between one-quarter and one-third of all Europeans who immigrated to Canada before 1891 died of infectious diseases.[24]

Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60° and 141°W longitude,[78] but this claim is not universally recognized. Canada is home to the world’s northernmost settlement, Canadian Forces Station Alert, on the northern tip of Ellesmere Island – latitude 82.5°N – which lies 817 kilometres (508 mi) from the North Pole.[79] Much of the Canadian Arctic is covered by ice and permafrost. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, with a total length of 202,080 kilometres (125,570 mi);[77] additionally, its border with the United States is the world’s longest land border, stretching 8,891 kilometres (5,525 mi).[80]

Canada’s population density, at 3.3 inhabitants per square kilometre (8.5 /sq mi), is among the lowest in the world. The most densely populated part of the country is the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor, situated in Southern Quebec and Southern Ontario along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.[87]

Average winter and summer high temperatures across Canada vary from region to region. Winters can be harsh in many parts of the country, particularly in the interior and Prairie provinces, which experience a continental climate, where daily average temperatures are near −15 °C (5 °F), but can drop below −40 °C (−40 °F) with severe wind chills.[88] In noncoastal regions, snow can cover the ground for almost six months of the year, while in parts of the north snow can persist year-round. Coastal British Columbia has a temperate climate, with a mild and rainy winter. On the east and west coasts, average high temperatures are generally in the low 20s °C (70s °F), while between the coasts, the average summer high temperature ranges from 25 to 30 °C (77 to 86 °F), with temperatures in some interior locations occasionally exceeding 40 °C (104 °F).[89]

Canada’s federal structure divides government responsibilities between the federal government and the ten provinces. Provincial legislatures are unicameral and operate in parliamentary fashion similar to the House of Commons.[97] Canada’s three territories also have legislatures, but these are not sovereign and have fewer constitutional responsibilities than the provinces.[103] The territorial legislatures also differ structurally from their provincial counterparts.[104]

Canada’s judiciary plays an important role in interpreting laws and has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court and final arbiter and has been led by the Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, P.C. (the first female Chief Justice) since 2000.[109] Its nine members are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. All judges at the superior and appellate levels are appointed after consultation with nongovernmental legal bodies. The federal cabinet also appoints justices to superior courts at the provincial and territorial levels.[110]

Common law prevails everywhere except in Quebec, where civil law predominates. Criminal law is solely a federal responsibility and is uniform throughout Canada.[111] Law enforcement, including criminal courts, is officially a provincial responsibility, conducted by provincial police forces.[112] However, in most rural areas and some urban areas, policing responsibilities are contracted to the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police.[113]

Canada and the United States share the world’s longest undefended border, co-operate on military campaigns and exercises, and are each other’s largest trading partner.[116] Canada nevertheless has an independent foreign policy, most notably maintaining full relations with Cuba and declining to officially participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Canada also maintains historic ties to the United Kingdom and France and to other former British and French colonies through Canada’s membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and the Francophonie.[117] Canada is noted for having a positive relationship with the Netherlands, owing, in part, to its contribution to the Dutch liberation during World War II.[56]

Canada’s strong attachment to the British Empire and Commonwealth led to major participation in British military efforts in the Second Boer War, World War I and World War II. Since then, Canada has been an advocate for multilateralism, making efforts to resolve global issues in collaboration with other nations.[118][119] Canada was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945 and of NATO in 1949. During the Cold War, Canada was a major contributor to UN forces in the Korean Warand founded the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in cooperation with the United States to defend against potential aerial attacks from the Soviet Union.[120]

During the Suez Crisis of 1956, future Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson eased tensions by proposing the inception of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force, for which he was awarded the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize.[121] As this was the first UN peacekeeping mission, Pearson is often credited as the inventor of the concept. Canada has since served in 50 peacekeeping missions, including every UN peacekeeping effort until 1989,[53] and has since maintained forces in international missions in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and elsewhere; Canada has sometimes faced controversy over its involvement in foreign countries, notably in the 1993Somalia Affair.[122]

Provinces and territories

Canada is a federation composed of ten provinces and three territories. In turn, these may be grouped into four main regions: Western Canada, Central Canada, Atlantic Canada, and Northern Canada (“Eastern Canada” refers to Central Canada and Atlantic Canada together). Provinces have more autonomy than territories, having responsibility for social programs such as health care, education, and welfare. Together, the provinces collect more revenue than the federal government, an almost unique structure among federations in the world. Using its spending powers, the federal government can initiate national policies in provincial areas, such as the Canada Health Act; the provinces can opt out of these, but rarely do so in practice. Equalization payments are made by the federal government to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.[131]

A clickable map of Canada exhibiting its ten provinces and three territories, and their capitals.

In the past century, the growth of Canada’s manufacturing, mining, and service sectors has transformed the nation from a largely rural economy to an urbanized, industrial one. Like many other First World nations, the Canadian economy is dominated by the service industry, which employs about three-quarters of the country’s workforce.[137] However, Canada is unusual among developed countries in the importance of its primary sector, in which the logging and petroleum industries are two of the most prominent components.[138]

Canada is one of the few developed nations that are net exporters of energy.[139] Atlantic Canada possesses vast offshore deposits of natural gas, and Alberta also hosts large oil and gas resources. The immense Athabasca oil sands give Canada the world’s second-largest proven oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia.[140] Canada is additionally one of the world’s largest suppliers of agricultural products; the Canadian Prairies are one of the most important global producers of wheat, canola, and other grains.[141] Canada is a major producer of zinc and uranium, and is a leading exporter of many other minerals, such as gold, nickel, aluminum, and lead.[139][142] Many towns in northern Canada, where agriculture is difficult, are sustainable because of nearby mines or sources of timber. Canada also has a sizable manufacturing sector centred in southern Ontario and Quebec, with automobiles and aeronautics representing particularly important industries.[143]

The global financial crisis of 2008 caused a major recession, which led to a significant rise in unemployment in Canada.[147] By October 2009, Canada’s national unemployment rate reached 8.6 percent, with provincial unemployment rates varying from a low of 5.8 percent in Manitoba to a high of 17 percent in Newfoundland and Labrador.[148] Between October 2008 and October 2010, the Canadian labour market lost 162,000 full-time jobs and a total of 224,000 permanent jobs.[149]Canada’s federal debt was estimated to total $566.7 billion for the fiscal year 2010–11, up from $463.7 billion in 2008–09.[150] Canada’s net foreign debt rose by $41 billion to $194 billion in the first quarter of 2010.[151]

The Canadian Space Agency operates a highly active space program, conducting deep-space, planetary, and aviation research, and developing rockets and satellites. In 1984, Marc Garneau became Canada’s first astronaut. As of 2012, nine Canadians have flown into space, over the course of fifteen manned missions.[156] Canada is a participant in the International Space Station (ISS), and is a pioneer in space robotics, having constructed the Canadarm, Canadarm2 and Dextre robotic manipulators for the ISS and NASA. Since the 1960s, Canada’s aerospace industry has designed and built numerous marques of satellite, including Radarsat-1 and 2, ISIS and MOST.[157] Canada has also produced a successful and widely usedsounding rocket, the Black Brant; over 1,000 Black Brants have been launched since the rocket’s introduction in 1961.[158]

Demographics

The 2011 Canadian census counted a total population of 33,476,688, an increase of around 5.9 percent over the 2006 figure.[6][160] Between 1990 and 2008, the population increased by 5.6 million, equivalent to 20.4 percent overall growth. The main drivers of population growth are immigration and, to a lesser extent, natural growth. About four-fifths of the population lives within 150 kilometres (93 mi) of the United States border.[161] Approximately 80 percent of Canadians live in urban areas concentrated in the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor, the BC Lower Mainland, and the Calgary–Edmonton Corridor in Alberta.[162] In common with many other developed countries, Canada is experiencing a demographic shift towards an older population, with more retirees and fewer people of working age. In 2006, the average age was 39.5 years;[163] by 2011, it had risen to approximately 39.9 years.[164]

Canada’s aboriginal population is growing at almost twice the national rate, and four percent of Canada’s population claimed aboriginal identity in 2006. Another 16.2 percent of the population belonged to a non-aboriginal visible minority.[167] The largest visible minority groups are South Asian (4.0%), Chinese (3.9%) and Black (2.5%). Between 2001 and 2006, the visible minority population rose by 27.2 percent.[168] In 1961, less than two percent of Canada’s population (about 300,000 people) could be classified as belonging to a visible minority group, and less than one percent as aboriginal.[169] By 2007, almost one in five (19.8%) were foreign-born, with nearly 60 percent of new immigrants coming from Asia (including the Middle East).[170] The leading sources of immigrants to Canada were China, the Philippines and India.[171] According to Statistics Canada, visible minority groups could account for a third of the Canadian population by 2031.[172]

According to the 2001 census, 77.1 percent of Canadians identify as Christian; of this, Catholics make up the largest group, accounting for 43.6 percent of the population. The largest Protestant denomination is the United Church of Canada (accounting for 9.5% of Canadians), followed by Anglicans (6.8%), Baptists (2.4%), Lutherans (2%), and other Christian denominations (4.4%). About 16.5 percent declare no religious affiliation, and the remaining 6.3 percent are affiliated with non-Christian religions, the largest of which are Islam (2.0%) and Judaism (1.1%).[180]

Canadian provinces and territories are responsible for education. The mandatory school age ranges between 5–7 to 16–18 years,[181] contributing to an adult literacy rate of 99 percent.[77] In 2002, 43 percent of Canadians aged 25 to 64 possessed a post-secondary education; for those aged 25 to 34, the rate of post-secondary education reached 51 percent.[182] The Programme for International Student Assessment indicates that Canadian students perform well above the OECD average, particularly in mathematics, sciences, and reading.[183]

Language

In 2006, about 17.4 percent of the population were reportedly bilingual.

English – 57.8%

English and French (Bilingual) – 17.4%

French – 22.1%

Sparsely populated area (<0.4 persons per km2)

Canada’s two official languages are Canadian English and Canadian French. Official bilingualism is defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Official Languages Act, and Official Language Regulations; it is applied by theCommissioner of Official Languages. English and French have equal status in federal courts, Parliament, and in all federal institutions. Citizens have the right, where there is sufficient demand, to receive federal government services in either English or French, and official-language minorities are guaranteed their own schools in all provinces and territories.[184]

English and French are the first languages of 59.7 and 23.2 percent of the population respectively. Approximately 98 percent of Canadians speak English or French: 57.8 percent speak English only, 22.1 percent speak French only, and 17.4 percent speak both.[185] The English and French official-language communities, defined by the first official language spoken, constitute 73.0 and 23.6 percent of the population respectively.[186]

The 1977 Charter of the French Language established French as the official language of Quebec.[187] Although more than 85 percent of French-speaking Canadians live in Quebec, there are substantial Francophone populations in Ontario, Alberta, and southern Manitoba; Ontario has the largest French-speaking population outside Quebec.[188] New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province, has a French-speaking Acadian minority constituting 33 percent of the population. There are also clusters of Acadians in southwestern Nova Scotia, on Cape Breton Island, and through central and western Prince Edward Island.[189]

Other provinces have no official languages as such, but French is used as a language of instruction, in courts, and for other government services, in addition to English. Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec allow for both English and French to be spoken in the provincial legislatures, and laws are enacted in both languages. In Ontario, French has some legal status, but is not fully co-official.[190] There are 11 Aboriginal language groups, composed of more than 65 distinct dialects.[191] Of these, only the Cree, Inuktitut and Ojibway languages have a large enough population of fluent speakers to be considered viable to survive in the long term.[192] Several aboriginal languages have official status in the Northwest Territories.[193] Inuktitut is the majority language in Nunavut, and is one of three official languages in the territory.[194]

In 2005, over six million people in Canada listed a non-official language as their mother tongue. Some of the most common non-official first languages include Chinese (mainly Cantonese; 1,012,065 first-language speakers), Italian (455,040), German (450,570), Punjabi (367,505) and Spanish (345,345).[195] English and French are the most-spoken home languages, being spoken at home by 68.3 and 22.3 percent of the population respectively.[196]

Before the arrival of European colonists and explorers, First Nations followed a wide array of mostly animistic religions.[89] During the colonial period, the French settled along the shores of the Saint Lawrence River, specifically Latin riteRoman Catholics, including a number of Jesuitsdedicated to converting Aboriginals; an effort that eventually proved successful.[90] The first large Protestant communities were formed in theMaritimes after the British conquest of New France, followed by American Protestant settlers displaced by the American Revolution.[91] The late nineteenth century saw the beginning of a large shift in Canadian immigration patterns. Large numbers of Irish and Southern Europeans immigrants were creating new Roman Catholic communities in English Canada.[92] The settlement of the west brought significant Eastern Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe and Mormon and Pentecostal immigrants from the United States.[93]

Canadians

Canadians (singular Canadian; French: Canadiens) are the people who are identified with the country of Canada. This connection may be genetic, residential, legal, historical, cultural or ethnic. For most Canadians, several (frequently all) of those types of connections exist and are the source(s) of them being considered Canadians.

Aside from the Aboriginal peoples, who according to the 2006 Canadian Census numbered 1,172,790, 3.8% of the country’s total population,[4] the majority of the population is made up of Old Worldimmigrants and their descendants. After the initial period of French and then British colonization, different waves (or peaks) of immigration and settlement of non-aboriginal peoples took place over the course of nearly two centuries and continues today. Elements of Aboriginal, French, British and more recent immigrant customs, languages and religions have combined to form the culture of Canada and thus a Canadian identity. Canada has also been strongly influenced by that of its linguistic, geographic and economic neighbour, the United States.

Canadians make up 0.5% of the world’s total population,2010[5] having relied upon immigration for population growth and social development.[6]Approximately 41% of current Canadians are first or second generation immigrants,[7] meaning two out of every five Canadians currently living in Canada were not born in the country.[8]Statistics Canada projects that, by 2031, nearly one-half of Canadians above the age of 15 will be foreign-born or have one foreign-born parent.[9]

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada there are three main classifications for immigrants: Family class (closely related persons of Canadian residents),Economic class (admitted on the basis of a point system that account for age, health and labour-market skills required for cost effectively inducting the immigrants into Canada’s labour market) and Refugee class (those seeking protection by applying to remain in the country by way of the Canadian immigration and refugee law).[43] In 2008, there were 65,567 immigrants in the family class, 21,860 refugees, and 149,072 economic immigrants amongst the 247,243 total immigrants to the country.[7] Canada resettles over one in 10 of the world’s refugees[44] and has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates in the world.[45]

The majority of Canadian citizens live in Canada; however, there are approximately 2,800,000 Canadians abroad as of November 1, 2009.[46] This represents about 7.5% of the total Canadian population. Of those abroad the United States, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, China, and Lebanon have the largest Canadian diaspora. Canadians in United States are the greatest single expatriate community at over 1 million in 2009, representing 35.8% of all Canadians abroad.[47] Under current Canadian law, Canada does not restrict dual citizenship but Passport Canada encourages its citizens to travel abroad on their Canadian passport, so they can access Canadian consular services.[48]

A 1911 political cartoon on Canada’s bicultural identity showing a flag combining symbols of Britain, France and Canada; titled “The next favor. ‘A flag to suit the minority.'”

Canada’s culture, like that of most any country in the world, is a product of its language(s), religion(s), political and legal system(s). Being a settler nation, Canada has been shaped by waves of migration that have combined to form a unique blend of art, cuisine, literature, humour and music.[51] Today, Canada has a diverse makeup of nationalities and constitutional protection for policies that promote multiculturalism rather than cultural assimilation or a single national myth.[52] In Quebec, cultural identity is strong, and many French-speaking commentators speak of a Quebec culture as distinguished from English Canadian culture.[53] However as a whole Canada is a cultural mosaic a collection of several regional, aboriginal, and ethnic subcultures.[54][55] Canadian society is often depicted as being “very progressive, diverse, and multicultural”.[56]

Canadian culture has historically been influenced by Aboriginal, French and British cultures and traditions. Most of Canada’s territory was inhabited and developed later than other European colonies in the Americas, with the result that themes and symbols of pioneers, trappers, and traders were important in the early development of the Canadian identity.[60] First Nations played a critical part in the development of European colonies in Canada, particularly for their role in assisting exploration of the continent during the North American fur trade.[61] The British conquest of New France in the mid 1700s brought a large Francophone population under British Imperial rule, creating a need for compromise and accommodation.[62] The new British rulers left alone much of the religious, political, and social culture of the French-speaking habitants, guaranteeing the right of theCanadiens to practise the Catholic faith and to the use of French civil law (now Quebec law) through the Quebec Act of 1774.[63]

The Constitution Act of 1867 was designed to meet the growing calls of Canadians for autonomy from British rule, while avoiding the overly-strong decentralization that contributed to the Civil War in the United States.[64] The compromises made by the Fathers of Confederation set Canadians on a path to bilingualism, and this in turn contributed to an acceptance of diversity that later led to both multiculturalism and the recognition of Aboriginal contributions to Canadian society.[65][66]

The Canadian Forces and overall civilian participation in the First World War and Second World War helped to foster Canadian nationalism,[67][68][69] however in 1917 and 1944 conscription crisis’s highlighted the considerable rift along ethnic lines between Anglophones and Francophones.[70] As a result of the First and Second World Wars, the Government of Canada became more assertive and less deferential to British authority.[71] With the gradual loosening of political ties to the United Kingdom and the modernization of Canadian immigration policies, in the 20th century immigrants with African, Caribbean and Asian nationalities have added to the Canadian identity and its culture.[72] The multiple origins immigration pattern continues today with the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from non British or French backgrounds.[73]

Canuck

“Canuck” ( often Johnny Cannuk)(/kəˈnʌk/) is a slang term for Canadians, often used as a name for Canadians in animated TV shows such as The Simpsons by Fox entertainment. The origins of the word are uncertain.

According to Bart Bandy’s Lexicon of Canadian Etymology (Don Mills, Ont., C. Farquharson, 1994), the term evolved from the French word canule around the time of the American Revolution, but its path of evolution is still not clear. Another possibility is that it rose from a mispronunciation among Benedict Arnold‘s forces as they laid siege to Quebec in the winter of 1776. According to Bandy, the comte de Theleme-Menteuse was one of the locals captured by the Americans. In his Contes bizarre d’Isle d’Orleans, the latter says that the Americans picked up the common phrase “Quelle canule“, but they were usually shivering so hard when they said it that it came out with the “l” hardened into a guttural stop – thence a “k”.

On the other hand, Richard Montgomery, Arnold’s co-commander on the Canadian expedition, says that Arnold, who loved word-play, made a joke on the word canule that was picked up by his troops. In discussing the strategic value of placing troops at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River to resist the British fleet expected in the spring, Arnold noted the peculiar shape of the Gaspé Peninsula and exclaimed, “There’s a canule to make his majesty gasp.” One assumes that the same shivering effect noted previously led to the mispronunciation.

Yet another possibility comes from the German mercenaries who were captured with John Burgoyne‘s army at Saratoga. Held in prison camps in Pennsylvania, after Yorktown they were offered repatriation to Canada where they had spent several months camped near present-day Ottawa waiting for Burgoyne to get his gear together. Their universal protestation when return to the “Plains of Ottawa” was offered them was “Nein! Nein! Genug von Kanada.” They opted, instead, to become Pennsylvania Dutch. The English-speaking Americans around them picked up the phrase (part of “Pulling the Lion’s Tail” no doubt) and compressed Genug von Kanada into “Genug Kanada,” and so on. While this seems somewhat far-fetched, it does offer a reasonable explanation for the “k” in a word supposedly derived from French, especially as it was often spelled “Kanuck” during the 19th century.

Bandy also suggests that there is some evidence of the word originating among the “down-easters” of Maine who had picked up “Quelle Canule” from their French-speaking neighbours and applied it when facing the navigational difficulties caused by the peculiar “flushing” effect of the famed tides of the Bay of Fundy.

Another possibility, though there is no mention in Bandy, is that the many Scots who came to Canada during the late 18th and early 19th centuries quickly absorbed Quelle canule into their working vocabulary. Being Scots, they would, of course, swallow the end of canule and apply a mild glottal stop, ending up with something very like “Quelle canuhgk.”[citation needed]

The Random House Dictionary notes that: “The term Canuck is first recorded about 1835 as an Americanism (American term), originally referring specifically to a French Canadian. This was probably the original meaning, though in Canada and other countries, “Canuck” refers to any Canadian.” [4] In fact, the 1835 source cited refers to a foreign-speaker: “Jonathan distinguishes a Dutch or a French Canadian, by the term Kanuk”.[5]

“Canuck” is a nickname for the Curtiss JN4biplane and Avro CF-100jetfighter. The CF-100 was the only Canadian-designed and built jet fighter to enter operational service. From 1950–1958, 692 Canucks were built. They remained in service until 1981

One of the first uses of “Canuck” — in the form of “Kanuk” — specifically referred to Dutch Canadians as well as the French.

The Crazy Canucks, Canadian alpine ski racers who competed successfully on the World Cup circuit in the ’70s.

Johnny Canuck, a personification of Canada who appeared in early political cartoons of the 1860s resisting Uncle Sam‘s bullying. Johnny Canuck was revived in 1942 by Leo Bachle to defend Canada against the Nazis. The Vancouver Canucks have adopted a personification of Johnny Canuck on their alternate hockey sweater. [6] The goaltender for the Canucks Roberto Luongo, has a picture of Johnny Canuck on his goalie mask.

In 1975 in comics by Richard Comely, Captain Canuck is a super-agent for Canadians’ security, with Redcoat and Kebec being his sidekicks. (Kebec is claimed to be unrelated to Capitaine Kébec of a French-Canadian comic published two years earlier.) Captain Canuck had enhanced strength and endurance thanks to being bathed in alien rays during a camping trip. The captain was reintroduced in the mid-1990s, and again in 2004.

The Canuck letter became a focal point during the US 1972 Democratic primaries, when a letter published in the Manchester Union Leader implied Democratic contender Senator Edmund Muskie was prejudiced against French-Canadians. Soon, as a result, he ended his campaign. The letter was later discovered to have been written by the Nixon campaign in an attempt to sabotage Muskie.

The Marvel Comics character Wolverine is often referred to affectionately as “the Ol’ Canuklehead” due to his Canadian heritage.

In the novel Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace, French-Canadians are often referred to as “‘Nucks.”

Fessenden, Reginald (1866–1932) – radio inventor who made the first radio-transmitted audio transmission and the first two-way transatlantic radio transmission; also invented sonar and patented the firsttelevision system

Smith, Ernest (1914–2005) – VC, CM, OBC, CD, Seaforth Highlander Private/ Sargent, the last living Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross, awarded for gallantry in actions at the River Savio, Northern Italy 1944

The North American climate stabilized around 8000 BCE (10,000 years ago). Climatic conditions were similar to modern patterns; however, the receding glacial ice sheets still covered large portions of the land, creating lakes of meltwater.[12][13] Most population groups during the Archaic periods were still highly mobile hunter-gatherers.[14] However, individual groups started to focus on resources available to them locally; thus with the passage of time there is a pattern of increasing regional generalization (i.e.: Paleo-Arctic, Plano and Maritime Archaic traditions).[14]

In 1608 Champlain founded what is now Quebec City, which would become the first permanent settlement and the capital of New France. He took personal administration over the city and its affairs, and sent out expeditions to explore the interior. Champlain himself discovered Lake Champlain in 1609. By 1615, he had travelled by canoe up the Ottawa River through Lake Nipissing and Georgian Bay to the center of Huron country near Lake Simcoe.[54] During these voyages, Champlain aided the Wendat (aka ‘Hurons’) in their battles against the Iroquois Confederacy.[55] As a result, the Iroquois would become enemies of the French and be involved in multiple conflicts (known as the French and Iroquois Wars) until the signing of the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701.[56]

Map of North America in 1702 showing forts, towns and areas occupied by European settlements. Britain (pink), France (blue), and Spain (orange)

While the French settlers were established in modern Quebec and Nova Scotia, new arrivals stopped coming from France. By 1680 the French population was around 11,000[67] and the British vastly outnumbered them (by approximately 10:1) from the Thirteen Colonies to the south. From 1670, through the Hudson’s Bay Company, the English also laid claim to Hudson Bay, and its drainage basin (known as Rupert’s Land), and operated fishing settlements in Newfoundland.[68]La Salle‘s explorations gave France a claim to the Mississippi River Valley, where fur trappers and a few settlers set up scattered settlements.[69] French expansion challenged the Hudson’s Bay Company claims, and in 1686Pierre Troyes led an overland expedition from Montreal to the shore of the bay, where they managed to capture some areas.[70]

Louisbourg was intended to serve as a year-round military and naval base for France’s remaining North American empire and to protect the entrance to the St. Lawrence River. Father Rale’s Warresulted in both the fall of New France influence in present-day Maine as well as recognition the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia. During King George’s War (1744 to 1748), an army of New Englanders led by William Pepperrell mounted an expedition of 90 vessels and 4,000 men against Louisbourg in 1745.[76] Within three months the fortress surrendered. The return of Louisbourg to French control by the peace treaty prompted the British to found Halifax in 1749 under Edward Cornwallis.[77] Despite the official cessation of war between the British and French empires with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle; the conflict in Acadia and Nova Scotia continued on as the Father Le Loutre’s War.[78]

With the end of the Seven Years’ War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1763), France ceded almost all of its territory in mainland North America, except for fishing rights off Newfoundland and two small islands where it could dry that fish. In turn France received the return of its sugar colony, Guadeloupe, which it considered more valuable than Canada.[82]

During the American Revolution there was some sympathy for the American cause among the Canadiens and the New Englanders in Nova Scotia.[85] Neither party joined the rebels, although several hundred individuals joined the revolutionary cause.[85][86] An invasion of Canada; by the Continental Army in 1775, to take Quebec from British control was halted at the Battle of Quebec, by Guy Carleton, with the assistance of local militias. The defeat of the British army during the Siege of Yorktown in October 1781, signaled the end of Britain’s struggle to suppress the American Revolution.[87] When the British evacuated New York City in 1783, they took many Loyalist refugees to Nova Scotia, while other Loyalists went to southwestern Quebec. So many Loyalists arrived on the shores of the St. John River that a separate colony—New Brunswick—was created in 1784;[88] followed in 1791 by the division of Quebec into the largely French-speaking Lower Canada (French Canada) along the St. Lawrence River and Gaspé Peninsula and an anglophone Loyalist Upper Canada, with its capital settled by 1796 in York, in present-day Toronto.[89] After 1790 most of the new settlers were American farmers searching for new lands; although generally favorable to republicanism, they were relatively non-political and stayed neutral in the War of 1812.[90]

The signing of the Treaty of Paris 1783, formally ended the war. Britain made several concessions to the Americans at the expense of the North American colonies.[91] Notably, the borders between Canada and the United States were officially demarkated.[91] All land south of the Great Lakes, which was formerly a part of the Province of Quebec and included modern day Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, was ceded to the Americans. Fishing rights were also granted to the United States in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the coast of Newfoundland and the Grand Banks.[91] The British ignored part of the treaty and maintained their military outposts in the Great Lakes areas it ceded to the U.S., and continued to supply the Indians there with munitions. The British evacuated the outposts with the Jay Treaty of 1795, but the continued supply of munitions irritated the Americans in the run-up to the war of 1812.[92]

The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and the British with the British North American colonies being heavily involved.[93] Greatly outgunned by the British Royal Navy, the American war plans focused on an invasion of Canada (especially what is today eastern and western Ontario). The American frontier states voted for war to suppress the First Nations raids that frustrated settlement of the frontier.[93] The war on the border with the U.S. was characterized by a series of multiple failed invasions and fiascos on both sides. American forces took control of Lake Erie in 1813, driving the British out of western Ontario, killing the Native American leader Tecumseh, and breaking the military power of his confederacy.[94] The war was overseen by Isaac Brock, with the assistance of First Nations and loyalist informants like Laura Secord.[95]

The War ended with the Treaty of Ghent of 1814, and the Rush–Bagot Treaty of 1817.[93] A demographic result was the shifting of American migration from Upper Canada to Ohio, Indiana and Michigan.[93] After the war, supporters of Britain tried to repress the republicanism in Canada, that was common among Americanimmigrants to Canada.[93] The troubling memory of the war and the American invasions etched itself into the consciousness of Canadians as distrust of the intentions of the United States towards the British presence in North America.[96]pp. 254–255

In Lower Canada, a more substantial rebellion occurred against British rule. Both English- and French-Canadian rebels, sometimes using bases in the neutral United States, fought several skirmishes against the authorities. The towns of Chambly and Sorel were taken by the rebels, and Quebec City was isolated from the rest of the colony. Montreal rebel leader Robert Nelson read the “Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada” to a crowd assembled at the town of Napierville in 1838.[98]The rebellion of the Patriote movement were defeated after battles across Quebec. Hundreds were arrested, and several villages were burnt in reprisal.[98]

British Government then sent Lord Durham to examine the situation, he stayed in Canada only five months before returning to Britain, and brought with him, hisDurham Report which strongly recommended responsible government.[99] A less well received recommendation was the amalgamation of Upper and Lower Canada for the deliberate assimilation of the French-speaking population. The Canadas were merged into a single colony, United Province of Canada, by the 1840 Act of Union, with responsible government achieved in 1848, a few months after it was granted to Nova Scotia.[99] The parliament of United Canada in Montreal was set on fire by a mob of Tories in 1849 after the passing of an indemnity bill for the people who suffered losses during the rebellion in Lower Canada.[100]

Between the Napoleonic Wars and 1850 some 800,000 immigrants came to the colonies of British North America, mainly from the British Isles as part of the great migration of Canada.[101] These included Gaelic-speaking Highland Scots displaced by the Highland Clearances to Nova Scotia and Scottish and English settlers to the Canadas, particularly Upper Canada. The Irish Famine of the 1840s significantly increased the pace of Irish Catholic immigration to British North America, with over 35,000 distressed Irish landing in Toronto alone in 1847 and 1848.[102]

In 1789 war threatened between Britain and Spain on their respective rights; the Nootka Crisis was resolved peacefully largely in favor of Britain, the much stronger naval power. In 1793 Alexander MacKenzie, a Canadian working for the North West Company, crossed the continent and with his Aboriginal guides and French-Canadian crew, reached the mouth of the Bella Coola River, completing the first continental crossing north of Mexico, missing George Vancouver’scharting expedition to the region by only a few weeks.[105] In 1821, the North West Company and Hudson’s Bay Company merged, with a combined trading territory that was extended by a licence to the North-Western Territory and the Columbia and New Caledonia fur districts, which reached the Arctic Ocean on the north and the Pacific Ocean on the west.[106]

Federation emerged from multiple impulses: the British wanted Canada to defend itself; the Maritimes needed railroad connections, which were promised in 1867; British-Canadian nationalism sought to unite the lands into one country, dominated by the English language and British culture; many French-Canadians saw an opportunity to exert political control within a new largely French-speaking Quebec[96]pp. 323–324 and fears of possible U.S. expansion northward.[109] On a political level, there was a desire for the expansion of responsible government and elimination of the legislative deadlock between Upper and Lower Canada, and their replacement with provincial legislatures in a federation.[109] This was especially pushed by the liberal Reform movement of Upper Canada and the French-CanadianParti rouge in Lower Canada who favored a decentralized union in comparison to the Upper Canadian Conservative party and to some degree the French-CanadianParti bleu, which favored a centralized union.[109][113]

A photochrome postcard showing downtown Montreal, circa 1910. Canada’s population became urbanized during the 20th century.

The Alaska boundary dispute, simmering since the Alaska purchase of 1867, became critical when gold was discovered in the Yukon during the late 1890s, with the U.S. controlling all the possible ports of entry. Canada argued its boundary included the port of Skagway. The dispute went to arbitration in 1903, but the British delegate sided with the Americans, angering Canadians who felt the British had betrayed Canadian interests to curry favour with the U.S.[120]

In 1893, legal experts codified a framework of civil and criminal law, culminating in the Criminal Code of Canada. This solidified the liberal ideal of “equality before the law” in a way that made an abstract principle into a tangible reality for every adult Canadian.[121]Wilfrid Laurier who served 1896–1911 as the Seventh Prime Minister of Canada felt Canada was on the verge of becoming a world power, and declared that the 20th century would “belong to Canada”[122]

Laurier signed a reciprocity treaty with the U.S. that would lower tariffs in both directions. Conservatives under Robert Borden denounced it, saying it would integrate Canada’s economy into that of the U.S. and loosen ties with Britain. Conservatives win the Canadian federal election, 1911.[123]

As a result of the First World War, Canada became more assertive and less deferential to British authority; it became an independent member of the League of Nations. In 1923 British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, appealed repeatedly for Canadian support in the Chanak crisis, in which a war threatened between Britain and Turkey. Canada refused.[131] The Department of External Affairs, which had been founded in 1909, was expanded and promoted Canadian autonomy as Canada reduced its reliance on British diplomats and used its own foreign service.[132] Thus began the careers of such important diplomats as Norman Robertson and Hume Wrong, and future prime minister Lester Pearson.[133]

In 1921 to 1926, William Lyon Mackenzie King‘s Liberal government pursued a conservative domestic policy with the object of lowering wartime taxes and, especially, cooling wartime ethnic tensions, as well as defusing postwar labour conflicts. The Progressives refused to join the government, but did help the Liberals defeat non-confidence motions. King faced a delicate balancing act of reducing tariffs enough to please the Prairie-based Progressives, but not too much to alienate his vital support in industrial Ontario and Quebec, which needed tariffs to compete with American imports. King and Conservative leader Arthur Meighen sparred constantly and bitterly in Commons debates.[134] The Progressives gradually weakened. Their effective and passionate leader, Thomas Crerar, resigned to return to his grain business, and was replaced by the more placid Robert Forke. The socialist reformer J.S. Woodsworth gradually gained influence and power among the Progressives, and he reached an accommodation with King on policy matters.[135]

In 1926 Prime Minister Mackenzie King advised the Governor General, Lord Byng, to dissolve Parliament and call another election, but Byng refused, the first and only time that the Governor General has exercised such a power. Instead Byng called upon Meighan, the Conservative Party leader, to form a government. Meighen attempted to do so, but was unable to obtain a majority in the Commons and he, too, advised dissolution, which this time was accepted. The episode, the King-Byng Affair, marks a constitutional crisis that was resolved by a new tradition of complete non-interference in Canadian political affairs on the part of the British government.

In 1931 the Statute of Westminster gave each dominion (which included Canada and Newfoundland) the opportunity for almost complete legislative independence from the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[136] While Newfoundland never adopted the statute, for Canada the Statute of Westminster has been called its declaration of independence.[137]

Canada was hard hit by the worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929. Between 1929 and 1933, the gross national product dropped 40% (compared to 37% in the US). Unemployment reached 27% at the depth of the Depression in 1933. Many businesses closed, as corporate profits of $396 million in 1929 turned into losses of $98 million in 1933. Canadian exports shrank by 50% from 1929 to 1933. Construction all but stopped (down 82%, 1929-33), and wholesale prices dropped 30%. Wheat prices plunged from 78c per bushel (1928 crop) to 29c in 1932.[138]

Urban unemployment nationwide was 19%; Toronto’s rate was 17%, according to the census of 1931. Farmers who stayed on their farms were not considered unemployed.[139] By 1933, 30% of the labour force was out of work, and one fifth of the population became dependent on government assistance. Wages fell as did prices. Worst hit were areas dependent on primary industries such as farming, mining and logging, as prices fell and there were few alternative jobs. Most families had moderate losses and little hardship, though they too became pessimistic and their debts become heavier as prices fell. Some families saw most or all of their assets disappear, and suffered severely.[140][141]

In 1930 in the first stage of the long depression, Prime Minister Mackenzie King believed that the crisis was a temporary swing of the business cycle and that the economy would soon recovery without government intervention. He refused to provide unemployment relief or federal aid to the provinces, saying that if Conservative provincial governments demanded federal dollars he would not give them “a five cent piece.”[142] His blunt wisecrack was used to defeat the Liberals in the 1930 election. The main issue was the rapid deterioration in the economy and whether the prime minister was out of touch with the hardships of ordinary people.[143][144] The winner of the 1930 election was Richard Bedford Bennett and the Conservatives. Bennett had promised high tariffs and large scale spending, but as deficits increased he became wary and cut back severely on Federal spending. With falling support and the depression only getting worse Bennett attempted to introduce policies based on the New Deal of PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in the United States, but he got little passed. Bennett’s government became a focus of popular discontent. For example, auto owners saved on gasoline by using horses to pull their cars, dubbing them Bennett Buggies. The Conservative failure to restore prosperity led to the return of Mackenzie King’s Liberals in the 1935 election. [145]

In 1935 the Liberals used the slogan “King or Chaos” to win a landslide in the 1935 election.[146] Promising a much-desired trade treaty with the U.S., the Mackenzie King government passed the 1935 Reciprocal Trade Agreement. It marked the turning point in Canadian-American economic relations, reversing the disastrous trade war of 1930-31, lowering tariffs, and yielding a dramatic increase in trade.[147]

Canada’s involvement in the Second World War began when Canada declared war on Nazi Germany on September 10, 1939, delaying it one week after Britain acted to symbolically demonstrate independence. The war restored Canada’s economic health and its self-confidence, as it played a major role in the Atlantic and in Europe. During the war Canada became more closely linked to the U.S. The Americans took virtual control of the Yukon in order to build the Alaska Highway, and was a major presence in the British colony of Newfoundland with major airbases.[151]

Mackenzie King — and Canada — were largely ignored by Winston Churchill and the British government despite Canada’s major role in supplying food, raw materials, munitions and money to the hard-pressed British economy, training airmen for the Commonwealth, guarding the western half of the North Atlantic Ocean against German U-boats, and providing combat troops for the invasions of Italy, France and Germany in 1943-45. The government successfully mobilized the economy for war, with impressive results in industrial and agricultural output. The depression ended, prosperity returned, and Canada’s economy expanded significantly. On the political side, Mackenzie King rejected any notion of a government of national unity.[152] The Canadian federal election, 1940 was held as normally scheduled, producing another majority for the Liberals.

After the start of war with Japan in December 1941 the government, in cooperation with the U.S., began the Japanese-Canadian internment, which sent 22,000 British Columbia residents of Japanese descent to relocation camps far from the coast. The reason was intense public demand for removal and fears of espionage or sabotage.[154]The government ignored reports from the RCMP and Canadian military that most of the Japanese were law-abiding and not a threat.[155]

The Conscription Crisis of 1944 greatly affected unity between French and English-speaking Canadians, though was not as politically intrusive as that of the First World War.[158] Of a population of approximately 11.5 million, 1.1 million Canadians served in the armed forces in the Second World War. Many thousands more served with theCanadian Merchant Navy.[159] In all, more than 45,000 died, and another 55,000 were wounded.[160][161]

The Progressive Conservative (PC) government of Brian Mulroney began efforts to gain Quebec’s support for the Constitution Act 1982 and end western alienation. In 1987 the Meech Lake Accord talks began between the provincial and federal governments, seeking constitutional changes favourable to Quebec.[187] The constitutional reform process under Prime Minister Mulroney culminated in the failure of the Charlottetown Accord which would have recognized Quebec as a “distinct society” but was rejected in 1992 by a narrow margin.[188]

Under Brian Mulroney, relations with the United States began to grow more closely integrated. In 1986, Canada and the U.S. signed the “Acid Rain Treaty” to reduce acid rain. In 1989, the federal government adopted the Free Trade Agreement with the United States despite significant animosity from the Canadian public who were concerned about the economic and cultural impacts of close integration with the United States.[189] On July 11, 1990, the Oka Crisisland dispute began between theMohawk people of Kanesatake and the adjoining town of Oka, Quebec.[190] The dispute was the first of a number of well-publicized conflicts between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century. In August 1990, Canada was one of the first nations to condemn Iraq‘s invasion of Kuwait, and it quickly agreed to join the U.S.-led coalition. Canada deployed destroyers and later a CF-18 Hornet squadron with support personnel, as well as a field hospital to deal with casualties.[191]

Following Mulroney’s resignation as prime minister in 1993, Kim Campbell took office and became Canada’s first female prime minister.[192] Campbell remained in office only for a few months: the 1993 election saw the collapse of the Progressive Conservative Party from government to two seats, while the Quebec-based sovereigntist Bloc Québécois became the official opposition.[193] Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberals took office in November 1993 with a majority government and was re-elected with further majorities during the 1997 and 2000 elections.[194]

Political shift in Canada in the first decade of the 21st century

In 1995, the government of Quebec held a second referendum on sovereignty that was rejected by a margin of 50.6% to 49.4%.[195] In 1998, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession by a province to be unconstitutional, and Parliament passed the Clarity Act outlining the terms of a negotiated departure.[195] Environmental issues increased in importance in Canada during this period, resulting in the signing of the Kyoto Accord on climate change by Canada’s Liberal government in 2002. The accord was in 2007 nullified by the present government, which has proposed a “made-in-Canada” solution to climate change.[196]

Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act.[197] Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories. Before the passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had married in these areas.[198]

The NEW WORLD ORDER Criminal Cabal controlling Canadian Parliamentary proceeding and therefore the entire Canadian Government all major parties that is.The members of these political parties namely the Conservatives,the Liberals and to a lesser degree the NDP are by definition all GUILTY of GRAND TREASON against the Canadian Peoples… Over the last 40 some years we have been sold out To foreign Criminal Elite who see the Canadian Population as nothing more than the Indian Inhabitant of north America the first time and want they want us gone as in exterminated for our land and resources Its all part of there AGENDA 21 Genocide Agenda

The power to find a person in contempt of Parliament stemmed from Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 in which “The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed… shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.”[2]

Regarding the above-mentioned “privileges,” there is an important difference between the “individual parliamentary privileges” and “collective parliamentary privileges.” This difference is also important in any case of “breach of privilege” as it applies to Parliamentary privilege in Canada.

The March 2011 contempt citation case involved Conservative MP Bev Oda.[4] While she was found to be prima facie in contempt by the Speaker, Oda was not formally held in contempt because Parliament was dissolved before a vote could be held on the matter.[6]

On March 9, 2011, Speaker of the Canadian House of CommonsPeter Milliken made two Contempt of Parliament rulings: The first found that a Conservative Party cabinet minister, Bev Oda, could possibly be in contempt of Parliament.[4] The second ruling found the Cabinet could possibly be in contempt of Parliament for not meeting Opposition members’ requests for details of proposed bills and their cost estimates, an issue which had “been dragging on since the fall of 2010.”[4][7] Milliken ruled that both matters must go to their responsible parliamentary committees and that the committee was required to report its findings to the Speaker by March 21, 2011 — one day before the proposal of the budget.

Concerning the Speaker’s first ruling, on March 18, 2011, Opposition members of the committee (who outnumbered the government members) said they still judged Oda to be in contempt of Parliament, despite her testimony that day,[8] but the committee process never proceeded far enough to make a finding as to whether Oda was in contempt.[6][7]

Concerning the Speaker’s second ruling, on March 21, 2011, the committee tabled a report[9] that found the Government of Canada in contempt of Parliament.[7] As such, a motion of no confidence was introduced in the House.[10] On March 25, 2011, Members of Parliament voted on this motion, declaring a lack of confidence by a vote of 156 to 145 and forcing an election.[11][12] The contempt finding is unique in Canadian history. In a wider context, it is the first time that a government in the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations has been found in contempt of Parliament.[13][14]

After prorogation, the Liberals underwent a change in leadership and distanced themselves from the coalition agreement, while the NDP and Bloc remained committed to bring down the government. The Conservative government’s budget, unveiled on January 27, 2009, largely met the demands of the Liberals who agreed to support it with an amendment to the budget motion.[2]

The 39th Canadian Parliament produced a Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper that lasted for two and a half years.[3] On September 7, 2008, the prime minister was granted a dissolution of parliament, triggering a snap election. Harper claimed that parliament had become dysfunctional necessitating a renewed mandate.

During the election campaign, publicity for strategic voting came from the Liberals, the Green Party, and the Anything But Conservative (ABC) campaign, foreshadowing the political divide that would become apparent in the weeks after the federal election, held on October 14.[4][5][6] The final tally saw an increase in the Conservative seat count from 127 to 143, a plurality, while the Liberals, led by Stéphane Dion, returned as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, with 77 seats, down from 103 seats. Two other parties, the New Democratic Party (NDP), with 37 seats, up from 29 seats, and the Bloc Québécois, with 49 seats, down from 51 seats, together with two independent members of parliament, were elected to the House of Commons.[7]

On November 27, 2008, Finance MinisterJim Flaherty provided the House of Commons with a fiscal update, within which were plans to cut government spending, suspend the ability of civil servants to strike until 2011, sell off some Crown assets to raise capital, and eliminate the existing CAD$1.95 per vote subsidy parties garner in an election.[8] Since money bills are matters of confidence,[9] the opposition was forced to consider whether to accept the motion or bring down the government. Flaherty’s update was ultimately rejected, purportedly on the grounds that it lacked any fiscal stimulus during the ongoingeconomic crisis,[10][11] for its suspension of federal civil servants’ ability to strike, for suspending the right for women to seek recourse from the courts for pay equity issues, and for the change in election financing rules.[12]

After the Conservative government tabled its fiscal update, NDP leader Jack Layton asked his predecessor, Ed Broadbent, to contact former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien to discuss a coalition to oust the Conservatives from power. The plan became public almost immediately.[13] Labelling the absence of an economic stimulus plan as irresponsible and the removal of public funding to parties as an attack against democracy, the opposition threatened to topple the weeks-old government by voting against the fiscal update. The opposition parties counted on the probability that Governor GeneralMichaëlle Jean would invite a Liberal-NDP coalition able to hold the confidence of the House of Commons to form a government, instead of any other options available to her.

It was decided that the coalition between the Liberals and NDP would last until June 30, 2011, the proposed coalition having a cabinet of 24 ministers of the Crown, with the leader of the Liberal Party as prime minister, 17 other Liberal ministers (including the minister of finance), and six New Democratic ministers; if the prime minister chose a larger cabinet, the NDP proportion would be maintained. As the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party, Dion would have become prime minister, likely serving until the Liberal leadership convention in May 2009. Further, Liberal party elders Frank McKenna, Paul Martin, John Manley, and former NDP premier Roy Romanow, were reported to have been asked to form an economic advisory body to the coalition if needed,[14][15] though both McKenna and Manley declined to take part.[16]

The leader of the Bloc Québécois, which held the balance of power in the 40th parliament, signed a policy accord with the other opposition parties and agreed to support the proposed coalition on confidence matters until at least June 30, 2010. In return, the Bloc would have seen a consultative mechanism in place for the duration of the agreement, but would have no direct participation in the coalition, receiving no cabinet positions and being free to vote as it wished on other matters.[17] Independent MP Bill Casey announced he would join in voting non-confidence in Harper’s government.[18][19] It has been speculated that Layton and Duceppe had formed an agreement prior to the Conservatives’ fiscal update and then persuaded Dion to sign on.[20][21][22]

In December 2008, Elizabeth May announced the Green Party would support the proposed coalition from outside parliament. Dion indicated that the Green Party would be given input, but not a veto, over coalition policy and left open the possibility, should he become prime minister, of advising the appointment of May to the Senate.

During the First World War, the Unionist Party was quickly formed after a coalition was proposed in response to the Conscription Crisis of 1917 and, in 2000, the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives were allegedly secretly considering forming a coalition government with the Bloc Québécois if, together, their three parties had won a majority of the seats in the 2000 election.[24] Four years following, Stephen Harper sent a letter to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, suggesting that, if the Liberal minority government fell, the Conservatives would be willing to form a government with the support of the Bloc Québécois and NDP.[25] During a subsequent press conference, Harper said: “In a minority parliament, if the government is defeated, the Governor-General should first consult widely before accepting any advice to dissolve parliament. So I would not want the prime minister to think that he can simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to a general election. That’s not the way our system works.”[26]

On November 28, 2008, Stephen Harper referred to the accord between the Liberals and NDP as undemocratic backroom dealing, stating that the opposition parties were “overturning the results of an election a few weeks later in order to form a coalition that nobody voted for”;[27]Transport ministerJohn Baird announced that two of the Minister of Finance’s proposals that had been rejected by the opposition—the elimination of political party subsidies and a ban on strikes by public servants—would be dropped.[28] Further, in response to the opposition’s demands for an economic stimulus package, the Conservatives changed their plan to one in which a federal budget would be presented on January 27, 2009, instead of late February or early March. However, despite these concessions, the Liberals still indicated that they intended to present their motion of non-confidence on December 8.[29]

The government then cancelled its initial opposition day, which was originally to be held on December 1, to avert the threatened vote of non-confidence,[30] meaning the earliest the coalition could possibly take office would be following a vote on a Liberal motion of non-confidence or on a supply motion put forth by the government, both scheduled for December 8, 2008.[31] On November 30, the Conservatives released a secretly recorded private NDP conference call in which Jack Layton indicated that the groundwork for assuring the Bloc’s participation “was done a long time ago.”[20] The NDP said in reaction that they would consider pressing criminal charges and alleged that Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) John Duncan received the invitation to participate by mistake,[21] in place of NDP MP Linda Duncan, who had “a similar email address.”[32] However, it does not constitute a wiretap crime under the Criminal Code of Canada if someone is invited to participate in a conference call and then releases the recording publicly.[33]

The possible change of government was debated during Question Period,[34] and the Conservatives aired radio and television advertisements contending that “a leader whose party captured just 25% of the vote in the October 14 election doesn’t have a legitimate mandate to govern.”[35] In anticipation of the Prime Minister’s visit to the Governor General, Harper’s office also organised protests outside of the viceroy’s residence, while Baird said that “Conservatives would go over the head of Parliament and of the Governor General.”[36] The revenue minister, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, said “It’s a kind of coup d’état,”[37] while Environment Minister Jim Prentice declared the coalition to be “irresponsible and it is undemocratic.”[37] Echoing Prentice’s sentiment, Harper insisted that the government “will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power.”[37]

Governor General Michaëlle Jean stated that “what is happening right now is part of the possibilities in our democratic system and I think that people can be reassured that, as I turn to what is happening, I am myself looking at my constitutional duties.”[38] Jean had three possible actions to pursue during her meeting with the prime minister on December 4, 2008: dissolve parliament, prorogue parliament, or ask him to resign and invite the opposition parties to form a government.

The media looked to the two previous occasions when the reserve powers of the governor general were used in respect to declining the advice of the prime minister: The first was in 1896, when Charles Tupper refused to resign as prime minister following his party’s loss in the election of that year and Governor General the Earl of Aberdeen refused to make several appointments, forcing Tupper to relinquish office. The second was in 1926, during the King-Byng Affair, when Prime MinisterWilliam Lyon Mackenzie King, already in minority government and having lost two votes that suggested he was likely to lose a third vote—one on a confidence question—asked Governor General the Viscount Byng of Vimy to dissolve parliament. Byng refused on the grounds that parliament should sit for a reasonable period before a new election may be called, and then only if members of parliament are demonstrably unable to work together to form an alternate government.[39] One view held that, in applying the constitutional conventions relied upon by Byng to the matters in 2008, Jean would have been obliged to deny a request to dissolve parliament within less than six months of the previous election,[39] unless Harper had a valid reason consistent with Commonwealth constitutional history. However, the situation in 2008 was not identical that which pertained in 1926, and so the precedent may not have been directly applicable; in the 1925 election, Arthur Meighenhad emerged as the plurality seat winner and the Liberals had suffered an electoral rebuff, with King losing his own parliamentary riding. Although Byng had suggested he resign immediately, King and his cabinet struggled on with Progressive Party support.[40] In 2008, the Tories were in an electoral ascendancy while the Liberals suffered one of their heaviest defeats. In addition, former Governor-General of New Zealand Sir Michael Hardie Boys expressed the opinion that Byng had been in error in not re-appointing King as prime minister on the defeat of Meighen in the vote of confidence.[41]

Peter H. Russell, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto, suggested that if Harper had sought a dissolution, the governor general would have had to consider carefully the reasonableness of the request. In Russell’s view, the viceroy’s primary concern is to protect parliamentary democracy and a dissolution of parliament would have necessitated an election only two months after the preceding one; repeated short term elections are not healthy for the system. In such a case, with a reasonably viable coalition available, Jean might then refuse Harper’s request for dissolution (requiring Harper to resign under constitutional precedent), and commission Dion to form a government.[42] Former governor generalAdrienne Clarkson wrote in her memoirs, Heart Matters, that she would have allowed the then prime minister, Paul Martin, a dissolution of parliament only after at least six months following the 2004 election; “To put the Canadian people through an election before six months would have been irresponsible,” she wrote, especially considering that she had received a letter co-signed by then opposition leader Stephen Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton, and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, asking her to consider letting them attempt to form a government without an election if the Liberal government should fall.[43][44]

Maclean’s columnist Andrew Coyne noted that, while a coalition government is neither unconstitutional nor illegitimate, there are several concerns that the governor general must address in considering installing such a government. As the coalition appeared volatile, its permanence or lack thereof would be a factor, as well as the possibility of creating a prolonged period of instability and uncertainty. Coyne also noted that the opposition parties’ plan was an extreme application of the traditional parliamentary prerogative to choose a government; that is, defeating an established government so soon after an election and replacing it with a likely unstable one.[45]

The option of prorogation (or discontinuing the session of parliament without dissolving it[46][47]) presented various possible scenarios: One was a long-term prorogation, lasting up to a legal maximum of one year,[48] while another was a short prorogation period lasting a few weeks to a few months. Each would delay any parliamentary activity, including the registering of a motion of non-confidence, and the Conservative government would therefore continue, though without new funding, which requires parliamentary approval. After discussions with the Governor General, Harper’s requested prorogation would suspend parliament until January 26, 2009, with the Cabinet scheduled to present the budget the following day. On December 3, Dion wrote to the Governor General with his opinion that she must refuse a prorogation as, in his opinion, it would be an abuse of power denying the right of the legislature to give or withhold its confidence in the government. He also suggested that the government had already, in effect, lost the confidence of the house and that she could therefore no longer accept Harper’s advice as her prime minister.[49]

Constitutional scholar C.E.S. Franks of Queen’s University suggested that the Governor General could have agreed to prorogue parliament, though on the condition that the government only manage day-to-day affairs until parliament was reconvened; the Governor General would not approve orders-in-council requiring Cabinet decisions, meaning that the government could not undertake any major policy initiatives, much like the way governments govern during an election campaign. However, a prime minister asking for prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote, as well a governor general refusing or implementing conditions on such a request, would all be unprecedented in Canadian history;[50] “there is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth,” Franks stated.[51]Constitutional scholar and former advisor to governors general Ted McWhinney said that the Governor General would have no choice but to follow the Prime Minister’s advice if asked for a prorogation, though the Prime Minister would have to explain to the electorate why he had advised this particular course.[52]

Former governor general and NDP politician Edward Schreyer stated that if the Conservative government were to lose a vote of confidence, Michaëlle Jean would have no choice but to offer the coalition the opportunity to govern. He also said that prorogation would be a difficult judgement call and said that a short prorogation might be reasonable as long as it wasn’t “used in the longer term as a means of evading, avoiding and thwarting the expression of the parliamentary will” by avoiding a confidence vote.[53]

In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald asked Governor General the Earl of Dufferin to prorogue parliament in order to stop the work of a committee investigating Macdonald’s involvement in the Pacific Scandal. While the Governor General did reluctantly prorogue parliament, he limited it to a period of ten weeks. When parliament returned, Macdonald was censured and had to resign.[54]

Both Harper and Dion addressed the nation on December 3, 2008, with televised statements broadcast on Canada’s major television networks. Harper’s five minute pre-recorded statement, televised nationally in English and French at 7 pm Eastern Time (ET),[55] outlined the steps the government had taken to address the economic crisis, while also attacking the Liberals for forming a coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. Harper said: “at a time of global economic instability, Canada’s government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together. At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada. And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen.”[56] The press noted that while he used the word sovereigntist in the French version of his speech, Harper used separatist in English.[57]

The networks also agreed to air a response from Dion, which aired around 7:30 pm ET;[55] in it, Dion attacked the Conservatives, stating they did not have a plan to weather the economic crisis, and he claimed that Canadians did not want another election, instead preferring that parliament work together during this time. “Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set. We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs.”[58] This statement, intended to air immediately following Harper’s, was late in arriving to the networks and was of low video quality, prompting the party to apologize; The Globe and Mail reported on December 5 that Dion’s chief of staff had bypassed the normal in-house Liberal shop, instead retaining an outside consultant to produce the video on short notice. CBC Television stayed on the air past 7:30 pm to show Dion’s statement, cutting into its regularly scheduled programming, and network anchorman Peter Mansbridge, speaking later that night on the newscast The National, compared the quality of Dion’s video to YouTube. CTV Television Network, which had already signed off its special broadcast before Dion’s statement arrived, was met with complaints both that the network had ignored the Liberals and that Dion had snubbed the network. CTV commentator Robert Fife stated that the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois were “angry” with the quality of Dion’s address, elaborating that it had undermined the credibility of the coalition.[59] Public statements also came from the Bloc and NDP leaders: Layton unsuccessfully requested his own airtime and had to share with Dion, although he later addressed Canadians live on the national news channels where he said “tonight, only one party stands in the way of a government that actually works for Canadians… Instead of acting on these ideas… Mr. Harper delivered a partisan attack.”[60] Duceppe said “Stephen Harper showed a serious and worrisome lack of judgment by putting his party’s ideology before the economy.”[60]

In the nine predominantly English-speaking provinces, polls showed the idea of a coalition was unpopular. Strongest support for the coalition came from Canada’s east coast and Quebec, while the strongest opposition was in Alberta, where people feared being politically marginalized by the four eastern-based opposition leaders.[61][62] It was speculated that had the coalition taken power from the Conservatives, it would revive western alienation, with some suggesting the formation of a western-based separatist party to counter the Bloc Québécois.[61] Anti-coalition rally organizers, however, emphasized that their opposition was to the Bloc’s associations with the coalition, not Quebecers in general (despite the fact that the Bloc’s would be a ‘supporter’ of the coalition, not a partner along with NDP or Liberal).[63] On December 2, 2008, the day after the three opposition parties signed the accord, the Canadian dollar dropped slightly. There were some speculation that markets would react negatively to the potential instability of a coalition government that required the support of a separatist party.[64]

At the same time, the Conservative attacks on the coalition may have cost the party support in Quebec, as Quebecers “tend to view sovereignist parties as legitimate political formations”;[65] Antonia Maioni, head of the Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University, stated that “[Harper] is portraying not only the Bloc Québécois but Quebecers in general as being a threat to national unity in Canada.”[66]Dion defended the coalition accord, saying that “fellow Quebecers who believe in separation are more likely to be reconciled with Canada if we work with them than if we marginalize them”.[67] Kelly McParland criticized Dion, a staunch federalist and the author of the Clarity Act, for taking part in negotiations with the Bloc.[68][69]

Quebec PremierJean Charest, a federalist and former leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, condemned the “anti-sovereigntist rhetoric” of the prime minister,[73] emphasizing that the Bloc MPs had been legitimately elected by Quebecers, and stating: “I live in a society in which people can be sovereigntists or federalists, but they respect each other. The same thing should prevail in the federal parliament.”[74] He also accused Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois of using the ensuing discussion about the coalition to attempt to build sovereigntist momentum.[73]

Political satirist and commentator Rick Mercer wrote, “The drama that played out this week was many things: unimaginable, embarrassing and, yes, it made our parliamentary system look like a laughingstock. However, this situation was not, as Mr. Harper insisted, undemocratic, illegal or un-Canadian.”[36] The editorial board of The Globe and Mail echoed Mercer’s sentiment, pointing out that Harper’s statements on the legality of the coalition were “knowingly erroneous” and,[27] in June, 2012, Peter H. Russell said the Conservative’s attacks on the legitimacy of the coalition proposal were “deliberately misleading” and that the notion that “a multiparty government must be approved by voters beforehand is ‘absolutely B.S.'”[75]

Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor General of Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with The Queen’s representative, Michaëlle Jean, on December 4, 2008

On December 2, it was announced that Harper’s plan was to ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament delaying a confidence vote until the new year.[76] The coalition leadership sent a letter to Jean—who, at the time, was abroad on a state visit to various European countries—informing her of the events, upon the receipt of which, Jean announced that she would cut her trip short and return to Ottawa “in light of the current political situation in Canada.”[35] Harper visited the Governor General at Rideau Hall, at approximately 9:30 am ET, on December 4. After consulting with the Prime Minister and other advisors for more than two hours, Jean granted Harper’s request and parliament was prorogued until January 26,[77][78] 2009, with the Conservatives scheduled to announce the budget the following day.[79][80] Near the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the two hour delay in giving her decision was partly to “send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection.”[81][82] She later stated in an interview on The Hour that “I was in a position where I could have said no… And the decision had really to, in my mind, to be in the best interests, really, of the country, looking at all of the circumstances. And I have no regrets.”[75]

It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of the constitutional experts from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard the Governor General’s decision to grant Harper’s request as an automatic rubber stamp; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would produce a passable budget. This, Russell said, set a precedent that would prevent future prime ministers from advising the prorogation of parliament “for any length of time for any reason.”[83] He in 2012 also speculated that, though it was likely not “an overriding factor”, Jean may have been concerned that, should she refuse Harper’s advice, the vote of non-confidence proceeded and succeeded, and a new coalition Cabinet was installed, the Conservative Party would launch a public campaign painting the new government and, by extention, the actions of the Governor General as illigitimate, creating “a crisis of confidence in Canada’s political system.”Peter Hogg disagreed with Russell’s supposition.[75]

Most scholars indicated that the privacy of the meeting between Harper and Jean follows “the tradition of regal discretion [going] back centuries, to the era when Britain’s Parliament was only a minor branch of government”;[84] the practice protects the viceroy’s necessary non-partisan nature.[85] Lorne Sossin, professor at the University of Toronto and a constitutional law expert, offered a counter-opinion, stating that “it is simply not acceptable to have a closed door at Rideau Hall at moments like this,”[86] citing that transparency is a necessity in democracy. Joe Comartin, NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh, suggested that such decisions should be made by the Chief Justice of Canada after a hearing in open court.[86]

Andrew Dreschel of the Hamilton Spectator stated proroguing parliament was the right move, imposing a “cooling-off period on the sweaty rhetoric and dank distortions that have been steaming up the political spectrum”. MP Bruce Stanton said the suspension of parliament until late January “was perhaps the last tool in our basket to be able to allow parliamentarians to take a step back”.[87][88][89] Before Russell revealed the conditions Jean placed on her acceptance of Harper’s advice, there was some concern that Jean’s decision may have set a precedent for a prime minister may seek prorogation or dissolution when confronting a potential vote of non-confidence.[90] Nelson Wiseman, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said the following of Harper’s advice “has been a blow to parliamentary democracy in Canada” and Helen Forsey,[90] daughter of Eugene Forsey, claimed that Jean’s granting of prorogation was a shameful encouragement of “flagrantly subversive behaviour by a Prime Minister” and that, had he still been alive, the senior Forsey’s “denunciations would have been ringing from the rooftops.”[39]Margaret Wente at the Globe and Mail opined that the Governor General was the only person who emerged from the situation with any gained respect.[91]

In his book Harperland, published in late 2010, columnist Lawrence Martin quoted Kory Teneycke, former director of communication for the Office of the Prime Minister, as saying that, in the days preceding Harper’s meeting with the Governor General, the option of appealing to The Queen was considered, should Jean decline prorogation. Such a series of events would have been a first in Canadian history. Constitutional scholar Ned Franks said to The Globe and Mail in September, 2010, that The Queen would likely have refused to intervene in such circumstances.[82]

On December 4, 2008, after the prorogation, Dion hinted that the Liberals could support the Conservative budget, but only if it represented a “monumental change.” Layton and Duceppe remained committed to their proposed coalition and toppling the Harper government,[92] with Layton demanding that the Conservatives provide affordable housing and childcare programs alongside subsidies for struggling industries.[93][94] Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said that the coalition would not survive when parliament resumed, while others in his party suggested working with the Conservatives on the economy.[95]

After the Governor General prorogued parliament, there were questions within the Liberal Party regarding the future of Dion’s leadership and the coalition. In a caucus meeting held the same day of the prorogation, Dion was criticized for sacrificing the party’s federalist principles; for disallowing dissent once the coalition accord was presented to caucus; and for the amateur, out-of-focus video of his address to the nation which undermined public support for the coalition.[96][97] Former deputy prime minister John Manley asked that Dion resign immediately, saying it was incomprehensible that the public would accept Dion as prime minister after rejecting him a few weeks earlier in the general election. Manley also said that a leader was needed “whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal party rather than leading a coalition with the NDP.”

Several other insiders advocated moving up the date of the party leadership vote, rather than have Dion remain leader for either a potential election or coalition, while leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae both agreed that Dion had to quit immediately.[95] Dion initially scheduled his resignation for the party’s leadership convention in May 2009, but on December 8, 2008, he announced that he would step down upon the selection of his successor.[98]

Bob Rae, who helped to persuade the Liberal caucus of the power-sharing deal,[99] took over as the coalition’s spokesman and planned to travel throughout the country to promote the coalition. By contrast, Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, was said to be uncomfortable with the idea of sharing power with the NDP and receiving committed support from the Bloc Québécois. Ignatieff said that there would be a “coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition,” noting that the coalition served a useful purpose by keeping the Conservatives in check,[100] but warned that the Liberals should look over the budget before deciding.[101][102][103][104] After the withdrawal of his two rivals,[105][106] Ignatieff was left as the sole declared leadership candidate, so he was appointed interim leader, and his position was ratified at the May 2009 convention.[107]

On December 12, Ignatieff met with Harper to discuss the budget, with their spokesmen describing it as a “cordial” meeting.[108] Layton and Duceppe remained committed to ousting the Harper government,[109][110] pledging that the NDP would vote against the Conservative budget regardless of what it contained.[111] Layton urged Ignatieff’s Liberals to topple the Conservatives before the shelf life of the coalition expired; constitutional experts said that four months after the last election, if the government fell, the Governor General would likely grant the Prime Minister’s request to dissolve parliament instead of inviting the coalition.[112]

On January 28, 2009, the Liberals agreed to support the budget as long as it included regular accountability reports, and the Conservatives accepted this amendment. This ended the possibility of the coalition, so Layton said “Today we have learned that you can’t trust Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper. If you oppose Mr. Harper and you want a new government, I urge you to support the NDP.”[2]

An Angus Reid Strategies poll on this subject conducted on December 1 and 2, 2008, consisting of online interviews with 1,012 Canadian adults, and with a reportedmargin of error of 3.1%, showed that 40% of respondents agreed with the statement “The Conservative party does not deserve to continue in government,” while 35% agreed with “The Conservative party deserves to continue in government,” and 25% were “not sure.” On the question “Should the opposition parties get together and topple the Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper?”, 41% responded No, 36% Yes, and 23% not sure. If the government was defeated in a no-confidence vote, 37% of respondents would support a coalition of opposition parties taking power, 32% favoured holding a new election, 7% favoured an accord rather than a coalition among opposition parties, and 24% were not sure.[113]

A Léger Marketing poll of 2,226 people, conducted on behalf of Sun Media and released on December 4, showed a regional split on what should happen if the Harper government fell. Nationally, 43% of respondents preferred a new election be held, compared to 40% who favoured allowing the coalition to govern. In Western Canada, however, respondents were sharply opposed to the coalition, led by Albertans, who responded 71% in favour of new elections. Quebec showed the highest level of support for the coalition, with 58% preferring it to a new election. Ontario was split, with 43% preferring an election compared to 39% supporting the coalition.[114]This poll also showed that 60% of Canadians were concerned that the Bloc Québécois would hold the balance of power in a coalition, compared to 35% that were not concerned, with the majority of respondents in every region, excluding Quebec, expressing concern. 34% of those polled argued that the Conservatives were best able to handle the economic crisis, compared to 18% for the coalition. 14% felt the Liberals individually were best prepared, 7% felt the NDP individually were the best choice, and 2% felt the Bloc Québécois were best.[115]

An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would have received 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party 8%, up from 4.5%. 37% of respondents (including the majority of Conservative voters) expressed support in proroguing parliament, while 28% (including a majority of Liberal and Bloc voters, and a near majority of NDP voters) supported the proposed coalition taking power within the next few weeks, with 19% supporting an election. Additionally, 47% of respondents thought that Harper’s Conservative government would better manage the financial crunch, versus 34% in support of the Dion-led coalition. Furthermore, 48% of respondents (including the majority of Liberal, NDP, and Green voters, but only 41% of Conservative voters) expressed confidence in the Governor General’s ability to make decisions regarding the impasse.[116]

An Ipsos-Reid poll suggested that if an election had been held on December 5, the Conservatives would have received 46% of the vote, enough to have easily formed a majority government. The poll also showed Liberal support had dropped to 23% from the 26.2% they received in the election, and New Democrat support fell to 13% from 18.2%. Also telling was that 56% of those polled said they would rather go to another election, rather than let the coalition govern.[117]

Public rallies, both in favour of and against the coalition, continued to be held a number of days after the prorogation, particularly on the afternoon of December 6. Besides the aforementioned that was attended by both Dion and Layton, other gatherings included one in Halifax, with Conservative MP Gerald Keddy attending;[118]one in Calgary, at which Conservative MP Jason Kenney addressed the crowd;[119] and at Queen’s Park in Toronto, where Conservative MP Peter Kent spoke alongside John Tory, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The rallies, all together, attracted over ten thousand, with the largest assembly being in Ottawa, with an estimated attendance of 4,000. Calgary had an estimated 2,500 and Toronto an estimated 1,500.

Web users across the political spectrum came out in force,[120][121] leaving thousands of posts on news websites, blogs, and news articles;[122] on December 1, The Globe and Mail website had over 4,500 comments posted on its articles related to the political dispute.[123] This motion was in addition to the multiple specialized websites that were launched during the upset,[124] and using the Internet to promote rallies and protests in the hopes of voicing their opinion.[125]

The first session of the 40th Canadian Parliament opened on November 18, 2008, after the Conservative Party, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, won a strengthened minority in that year’s election, increasing their seat count by 16. The leaders of the parties in opposition—the Liberal Party, NDP, and the Bloc Québécois—soon initiated talk of voting non-confidence in the government and offering themselves as a coalition government to Governor General Michaëlle Jean. However, Stephen Harper delayed the confidence vote scheduled for December 1 and advised the Governor General to prorogue parliament from December 4, 2008, to January 26, 2009. The opposition coalition dissolved shortly after, with the Conservatives winning a Liberal supported confidence vote on January 29, 2009.

On December 30, 2009, Prime Minister Harper announced that he had counseled the Governor General to prorogue parliament throughout the February 12–28 2010 Winter Olympics, until March 3, 2010, and Jean signed the proclamation later that day, granting his request, as provided for by constitutional convention.[9][10] The prorogation eliminated 22 sitting days from the Parliamentary schedule.[11] According to Harper’s spokesman, the Prime Minister sought this prorogation to consult with Canadians about the economy.[9] However, the move triggered immediate condemnation from Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale, who labelled the Conservative government’s move an “almost despotic” attempt to muzzle parliamentarians amid controversy over the Afghan detainees affair.[9] In an interview withCBC News, Prince Edward Island Liberal Member of Parliament Wayne Easter accused the Prime Minister of “shutting democracy down”.[12][13] During this time, PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas pointed out to the media that the Prime Minister was at work in Ottawa while the Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was off at his vacation home in the south of France.[14]

On January 5, in an interview on CBC TV The National, Mr Harper said that prorogation was a “routine” move to allow the government to adjust its budget due on March 4.[18] His spokesman stated that the 63-day gap between sessions was less than the average prorogation of 151 days since 1867. However, in the three decades prior to his 2009 prorogation the average was just 22 days.[15]

On January 7, the British weekly news publication The Economist published two articles on the issue, both generally critical of the prorogation. One article stated that “Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest.”[19] The other article stated that Harper has, “given the opposition, which is divided and fumbling, an opportunity.”[15]

Opposition leaders stated that Mr Harper’s real reason for the prorogation was to end an embarrassing debate on the government’s alleged complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees, and in particular to avoid complying with a parliamentary motion to hand over all documents relevant to those charges. They also stated that the prime minister wanted to name new senators and then reconstitute the Senate’s committees to reflect the Conservatives’ additional representation, something that could not be done if Parliament was merely adjourned. Ned Franks, a historian and veteran political scientist said that no previous prime minister has prorogued the legislature “in order to avoid the kind of things that Harper apparently wants to avoid,”[15]

The initial organization of the January 23 rallies started with a group on the social networking website Facebook, called “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” in early January 2010, led by Christopher White, an anthropology student at the University of Alberta.[20][21][22] The actual coordination of the rallies was organized by a secondary Facebook group, called “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament-Rally for the Cause!”, which was founded by Shilo Davis, who acted as the National Rally Coordinator in collaboration with Chris White and his group.[23][24] By January 9, eleven days after the prorogation, it had gained 113,000 members.[25] The group gained public support from Michael Ignatieff.[26]

An EKOS poll released January 7 found that Canadians were nearly twice as likely to oppose the December 30, 2010 prorogation than support it.[25]

Prior to January 20, comedian Rick Mercer ranted on the Rick Mercer Report, “…Now polls never tell the full story but this much is certain: whenever the party in power drops 15 points in 15 days, you can be assured of one thing – someone in charge just did something really stupid.”[26] By January 21, the Liberal Party and the Conservative party were in a virtual tie.[28]

By the time of the January 23 rallies, the Facebook group had over 210,000 members.[20][21][22]

On January 20, 2010, a rally of approximately 60 protesters gathered to greet Prime Minister Harper as he visited the C.D. Howe Institute in Toronto.[29] On that same day NDP leader Jack Layton called for limits to prorogation saying that his party will call for legislative changes that would require a majority vote of MPs for the prorogation of Parliament.[30]

Three days later the main planned rallies gathered across Canada. The rally in Toronto at Yonge-Dundas Square was the largest in Canada, attracting over 6,000 demonstrators, while the one in Ottawa involved close to 3,000.[31][32] The largest per capita turnout was found in Victoria, where 1,500 people rallied under sunny skies.[33] Protesters in many ridings with Conservative Members of Parliament urged the Party’s members back to work.[34] In Regina, three supporters of Harper counter-protested, and were booed by the main crowd.[6] Protesters determined that Stephen Harper was using voter apathy to his advantage while proroguing parliament.[35] At the Ottawa rally, Michael Ignatieff said that “This is a demonstration that shows that Canadians understand their democracy, care for their democracy, and if necessary will fight for their democracy. This demonstration does not belong to the politicians of any party, it belongs to the Canadian people”, while announcing that the Liberal MPs would be back to work on January 25, the original date for the end of prorogation, to hold public meetings.[6] New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton also called for limits to prorogation.[6] During the Toronto rally, Bob Raecommented that he attended “because it’s a chance for me to join others who agree that Mr. Harper made a terrible decision.”[32] Rae has subsequently been criticized for his controversial use of the power to prorogue when he was Premier of Ontario.[36]

CATEGORIES

CATEGORIES

NEWS CHAT

COPYRIGHT and FAIR USE DISCLAIMER

Disclaimer:

DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE!

The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually review each and every one of the posts CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY gets on a daily basis.

The content of posts on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY.This site may contain adult language, if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.

Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to use there better judgement and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.

This website implements certain security features in order to prevent spam and posting abuse. By making a post on this website you consent to any automated security checks required by our system to authenticate your IP address as belonging to an actual human. It is forbidden to make posts on this website from open proxy servers. By making a post on this website you consent to an automated one time limited port scan of your IP address which is required by our security system to validate the authenticity of your internet connection.

This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.

Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.

We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

At some point freedom of speech and copyright law merge. The following interpretation of "Fair Use" and subsequent posting policy were developed with the assistance of qualified legal council however, we are not lawyers and cannot offer you legal advise as to the limits of "Fair Use"

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

Though legally each situation is evaluated independently according to guidelines that were intentionally left open to interpretation, we believe generally this policy represents "Fair Use" of any such copyrighted material for the purposes of education and discussion.

You are responsible for what you "publish" on the internet. You must be sure any copyrighted material you choose to post for discussion on this forum falls within the limits of "Fair Use" as defined by the law.

For more information please visit:
The Electronic Frontier Fondation website

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "Fair Use" and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright
you may contact us concerning copyright matters at: CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY@HUSH.COM

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question. It is our strict policy to disable access to accounts of repeat copyright violators. We will also ban the IP address of repeat offenders from future posting on this website with or without a registered account.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors CANADIANSUNDERNEWSTYRANNY makes no claim of copyright on any such material.

Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.

DON'T BREAK THE LAW!
-----
Other than that you can do / say whatever you want on this forum.

We reserve the right to block access to this website by any individual or organization at any time for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all.

Archives

Recent Posts: Canadians Under News Tyranny

4 Questions for Supporters of a Strike Against Syria Washington’s Blog September 8, 2013 Ask anyone still thinking of supporting an attack on Syria to explain why the U.S. started supporting the Syrian opposition years before any uprising had occurred there. And ask them to explain why 4-Star General Wesley Clark was told – right […]

Sen Graham Warns of Nuke Strike After Missing Warheads Report Senator warns South Carolina is nuclear bomb target following Infowars report on black ops nuke transfer Alex Jones & Anthony Gucciardi Infowars.com September 5, 2013 Senator Lindsay Graham has warned South Carolinians about the threat of a ‘terrorist nuclear attack’ on the same day that […]

The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars Paul Craig Roberts Infowars.com September 6, 2013 Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every […]